"Hit?" or "Illegal use..."

[The_Rookie]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I'm not sure how it gives a HS coach something more to complain about. Since we go tableside in HS, I am closer to the benches when I report and they are more likely to hear my verbal description of the foul. It's a tool to eliminate potential questions about what his player did.

Agree 100%..been my experience as well..cuts down on questions.

[tcmzueck]

Wow, thanks for the numerous, prompt replies. I'll try no verbalization, and extensive verbalization, and see what I like better.

I got in that habit my first season when I heard one of our official trainers talk about how there are only five fouls and you've got to choose one of them, but yeah, I like all your explanations.

Thanks!

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by tcmzueck

Wow, thanks for the numerous, prompt replies. I'll try no verbalization, and extensive verbalization, and see what I like better.

Or, verbalize / add only when there's a need. Most of the time, it's pretty obvious what you called.

[LRZ]

Some refs use a simple verb (eg, "hits") and a mimetic gesture showing where/how the foul occurred (eg, tapping their head).

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Often I'll say what they actually did--"hits his elbow", "grabbed his arm", "hit to the face", etc.

That is frowned upon by some, but it works for me.

When I started I was taught to say "Hit" at the table but the last couple of years, I have gone to this. I like it better and it is more descriptive. I've even gone off the reservation a couple of times - gasp - and done the "hit to the head" unofficial signal.

Of course I was also taught to provide a full verbal report of the foul with preliminary signal at the spot of the foul before going to the table and I definitely don't do that anymore either.

While this isn't by the book, I have never received feedback that it was unclear what I was calling.